Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

Bill if she really was up at the crack of dawn buying bleach and lying about it, it is damning. Just because she then didn't use it doesn't really matter. Maybe they put all their incriminating evidence in a plastic bag and then poured bleach in before tossing it. Maybe they soaked everything in Raf's sink and that's why the place still smelled of bleach.

Before you blow a gasket, I'm not suggesting any of the above is true but the ILE would not need to "tie" the bleach buy to anything specific related to the murder.

I do not think you think any of that is true, nor do I think you think it true...... so let me blow a gasket about the real issue.

It is the rhetoric which has always surrounded this - the rush to the extreme end of rhetoric. "Lying"? "Damning"?

Lying about what? Her participation in a murder? Damning about what? That she'd bought bleach with intent..... to what? That'd she'd forgotten about it, because as an innocent person she could not immediately second-guess how her every-recollection or non-recollection might contribute to......

What? An ever moving target of suspicion depending on how people of ill-will were going to use her statements? Her forgetfulness means she's guilty. Her memories, esp. the ones which agree with Raffaele's also means she's conspired with him! Sooner or later one has to show some evidence they were even involved!

The worst news about this is that I agree with carbonjam72. This is bad news for him, I'm sure he'll agree.

 

[anglolawyer]

I've also had moments of being more complicatedly wrong, too!

Yet, even if Amanda had briefly gone out to buy bleach in the morning, and she herself honestly thought nothing of it, why would she include it in her accounts?

She'd forgotten that she'd called her mother. Those otherwise minor inconsistencies, inconsistencies with nothing to do with the case - really - have been spun into something suspicious by those with nothing else.

Ok, not "nothing else", but similar trivialitudes which even the 2013 ISC said had to be taken into account to buttress an osmotic evaluation of their guilt.

No, I am not saying it is irrelevant if Amanda had perhaps got up early and gone to buy bleach. It is perhaps "something" (some non-zero value of suspicion) - but for pete's sake, without finding another piece of the puzzle into which this fits........ (cf. what was the bleach for? Did anyone ever accuse her of cleaning her shoes? If she had cleaned her shoes, why? Where are the complementary shoe tracks at the scene?)

They wanted bleach on the early morning of Nov 2nd to clean a knife? Which knife? Rather than just chucking that into the discussion, is it not incumbent to at least tie that into something which also has something to do with the crime?

Other than being a stand-alone, "Wow, she forgot she'd bought bleach!" what exactly does THAT point to? The problem with even osmotic evaluations (Italian-style, not something I'm accusing you of) is that sooner or later it has to converge onto something.

Post-March 27 acquittals, what would it exactly mean if Michael of .NUT suddenly produced the receipts he's always promised? The bleach receipts, that is - not the pizza receipts he actually has in his possession?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[RWVBWL]

Hi Billy Williams!
Dude get with it!
If ya wanna earn your paycheck,
ya gotta get those 75 more words in, or how many more was that Vixen?

Anyways,
Free Rudy Guede has posted some pix on The Nutz website
http://www.perugiamurderfile.net/vi...d=2431f23b11b9aa9a6c16091efabce549&start=4750
showing how Miss Kercher clawed at Foxy Knoxy's throat!

That was not a hickey,
it's a defensive scrape from a young chick defendin' herself before she was raped and murdered.

How could I be soooo clue less to not have realized this myself?
I mean its not like I've never seen a good cat fight
and the aftermath as the cuties were re-adjustin' their bikinis down at the hangout wall of The VBWL.
Banged up chicks on the beach in bikini's, classic!

Gosh,
for some reason that scratch sure looks like some of the hickeys that I've given Melissa.
No way thats a hickey, it's a scratch, as Free Rudy Guede is tryin' to convince me.

But I'ma bit skeptical.
Might have to bust out a Canon and take a time lapse sequence and show some of those old chicks
what it's like to have a horny dude suckin' their ?,
err neck,
yea!

Mez scratced at Amanda?
Hmmmm...

And [SIZE="-7"]Raff[/SIZE] and/or Amanda cut Meredith's fingernails off
after Rudy went out dancin' + before the cops arrived!

Hahaha.
****^^^ funny!

 

[Bill Williams]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Well, at least this is something I can agree with. I guess that'll teach me.

 

[Desert Fox]

The "other thing"? What else did she lie about, other than pot?

As for trust - she trusted that the police were not lying to her, which they were. After her arrest, she slowly disabused herself of the notion that anything to do with the justice system could be trusted.

Mean to be "The only thing"

 

[RWVBWL]

Dang,
I luv my memory, I think!
I can still surf kinda rwright,
but I forget other things.

Heck,
just this early mornin' I remember, or so I thought I did,
having read of Vixen givin' AngloLawyer some crap about not gettin' his 75 words in.
But I thought that I had instead remembered reading that Vixen was chastising Bill Williams,
and posted here about it, duh.
Wrong, RW

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, ok,
but I've also recently read that what Alessandra Formica told The Massei Court that she ate
before leaving the restaurant with her dude who bumped into that man of colour
was not what she told the cops in her deposition.

The same depo where she brought a timed receipt to help the cops
narrow down the problem of Meredith Kercher's time of death,
which was surely in the local newspapers by then, you'd think..

She remembered what she ate a few days after the rape + murder,
probably had that itemized dinner receipt to help her recollect her memory.
Over a year later, she lost that memory...

Esh,
PM Mignini had to correct,
err remind her about her dinner that loooong ago night,
in court of all places.

Thanks for this Ken Dine:
PM Mignini:
QUESTION - What do you order?

Alessandra:
ANSWER - Then I remember I ate the dumplings, or
gnocchi or risotto made with wine Sagrantino, then ...

PM Mignini:
QUESTION - You do not remember exactly?

Alessandra:
RESPONSE - A detail that after a year do not ...

PM Mignini:
QUESTION - You said, if now you remember, 12
November always in the statements made to the
squad, you ate an appetizer
grilled vegetables and two first courses of dumplings. Then
you have consumed a chocolate cake
inside?

* * *

Odd how the good ol' PM in court corrects Alessandra on her meal,
BUT did not correct Marco Q in court when his testimony differed remarkedly
from what Inspector Volturno stated Quintavalle said to him in the dayz after Meredith was found raped + murdered.

Formica's mind forgets,
Quintavalle's mind remembers.
A year later.
Right...


And the cops remembered, wrote down + typed up in Italian legalese speak
exactly what Miss Knox said in English without using any audio recording device
on the night of Nov. 5th + morning of the 6th, due to what was it, budgetary concerns?

I'd never heard of this budgetary issue until someone here on The ISF mentioned an interview, mighta been on CNN IIRC.

Does that mean that most all the other times before her arrest
PM Mignini had the police recording Miss Knox's conversations?

 

[Ken Dine]

I don't agree. Of course the Italians might have thought so, but imagine a scenario in which an innocent Amanda actually did go out and buy bleach in the early morning, perhaps because she wanted to clean the toilet or disinfect the drain. Nothing wrong with that, but in the context of this case, on the face of it, the purchase might seem incriminating.

An innocent person might lie. But neither the lie nor the purchase is proof of guilt of murder. Lots of false convictions have been predicated on inconvenient, innocent, though apparently incriminating truths; more, perhaps have been predicated on the lies of defendants who lied because they did not trust the system to handle the truth fairly.

I realize that you're merely posing a theoretical mental exercise, but since clearly Amanda would have had mucho cleaning supplies on hand at Rafaele's apartment without going to the store early in the morning of Nov 2nd, why not make your theoretical scenario more plausible?

Suppose instead, that Amanda awoke early on Nov 2nd and realized she needed tampons, so around 6:30 she rushed to the nearest market (Quintavalle's) where she quickly bought the tampons, and went back to Raffaele's apartment, and then she went back to sleep until 10:00 am, as she had claimed.

Several days later while being grilled by the police Amanda may have very well forgot her tampon buying excursion, after all, think back 4 or 5 days and try to reconstruct your every move on any particular day.

Of course, there are reasons to even discount a theoretical quick tampon excursion to Quintavalle's store, such as Quintavalle's two clerks testified they didn't see Amanda that morning, and even Quintavalle told the police (at first) that he hadn't seen Amanda in his store that morning.

Also, there may be no register receipts showing tampons purchased at that hour, but that didn't stop them with the imaginary bleach receipts.

Quintavalle's description of the coat he claimed Amanda wore that morning didn't match any of her actual clothing.

That Amanda's alibi was busted (in part) at the Massei trial by Quintavalle's obviously bogus story, is truly amazing!

 

[Numbers]

Certainly I didn't say that it was kosher for anyone to spread lies but I see a big difference between the "tea lady" telling a reporter something versus the head of the Flying Squad for example.

Do you have any example of the ECHR doing something about an unnamed source spreading falsehoods about a case?

An initial search on "presumption of innocence" gave 450 cases.

I think that an "unnamed source" is switching the topic, though.

It is whether leaks from the police or other State agents, who may not be specifically named, could violate presumption of innocence. The information would need to have been something only the police or other State agents had access to - for example, information in a prison diary seized from a prisoner.

Otherwise, some private (non-State) person could be responsible for a rumor; that is different. IIUC, there needs to be a connection to the State for presumption of innocence to be breached by the State.

 

[Ken Dine]

They might have wanted bleach to clean shoes or a knife or something else, who knows? Obviously, it's better if all the scraps of evidence build a coherent picture but that doesn't make outliers irrelevant.

If it emerged that Amanda really had got up early to buy bleach but had chosen to omit the fact from her accounts, are you saying that would be irrelevant unless it could be shown what the bleach was for? Pshaw! You're simply wrong.

#1 - Amanda obviously had no need to buy bleach that morning since there were two jugs of Ace bleach under Raffaele's kitchen sink.

#2 - If that was just a hypothetical question, then Bill makes good points in rebuttal:

I've also had moments of being more complicatedly wrong, too!

Yet, even if Amanda had briefly gone out to buy bleach in the morning, and she herself honestly thought nothing of it, why would she include it in her accounts?

She'd forgotten that she'd called her mother. Those otherwise minor inconsistencies, inconsistencies with nothing to do with the case - really - have been spun into something suspicious by those with nothing else.

Ok, not "nothing else", but similar trivialitudes which even the 2013 ISC said had to be taken into account to buttress an osmotic evaluation of their guilt.

No, I am not saying it is irrelevant if Amanda had perhaps got up early and gone to buy bleach. It is perhaps "something" (some non-zero value of suspicion) - but for pete's sake, without finding another piece of the puzzle into which this fits........ (cf. what was the bleach for?

Did anyone ever accuse her of cleaning her shoes? If she had cleaned her shoes, why? Where are the complementary shoe tracks at the scene?)

They wanted bleach on the early morning of Nov 2nd to clean a knife? Which knife? Rather than just chucking that into the discussion, is it not incumbent to at least tie that into something which also has something to do with the crime?

Other than being a stand-alone, "Wow, she forgot she'd bought bleach!" what exactly does THAT point to? The problem with even osmotic evaluations (Italian-style, not something I'm accusing you of) is that sooner or later it has to converge onto something.

Post-March 27 acquittals, what would it exactly mean if Michael of .NUT suddenly produced the receipts he's always promised? The bleach receipts, that is - not the pizza receipts he actually has in his possession?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

OK, I give up ...why the BIG SNOOZE response? I thought Bill's comment was OK?

 

[Grinder]

I asked for a source, but remain confused over precisely what is the source. Can you clarify Grinder?

I found a report made during the trial that covered the issue. The reporter stated that the cash register had been sequestered. He went on to say that the lack of a computer record produced seemed to indicate they had found nothing.

Here's another source from AKC.com

President: The Public Prosecutor can exhaust the examination. So the defense is asking, when the police came and they asked you what? About the bleach you were saying?

Quintavalle: Yes, they asked about the Ace bleach and they asked me for my cash register record, the daily book let’s call it where all the sales are recorded, the roll of receipts, because one is given to the customer and one remains in the book, so to speak. And they took it to see on which day there had been the purchase of Ace bleach at 1.09.

So you all owe the Vixen an apology for nit-picking about this.

Here's the first post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10847406#post10847406

Quintavalle had asked his cashiers if they remembered her or what she had bought that morning, but they did not remember anything. Quintavalle stated that detergent bleach is sold in his store for 1.09 euro per bottle and he carries only one kind (ACE), and they are all 1.09 per bottle.

Comment: if the prosecution introduces a till receipt for a 1.09 euro item sold at approximately 8:00am on November 2nd this would be very telling. So far such a receipt has not been introduced. The Police sequestered the till receipts, but have not officially released the findings. A possible problem is that many places don’t even ring up the items on the register to save the taxes and half probably go missing anyway. But overall, this was quite damning testimony.

I should have said earlier they sequestered the till receipts, oh my.

 

[acbytesla]

I found a report made during the trial that covered the issue. The reporter stated that the cash register had been sequestered. He went on to say that the lack of a computer record produced seemed to indicate they had found nothing.

Here's another source from AKC.com

President: The Public Prosecutor can exhaust the examination. So the defense is asking, when the police came and they asked you what? About the bleach you were saying?

Quintavalle: Yes, they asked about the Ace bleach and they asked me for my cash register record, the daily book let’s call it where all the sales are recorded, the roll of receipts, because one is given to the customer and one remains in the book, so to speak. And they took it to see on which day there had been the purchase of Ace bleach at 1.09.

So you all owe the Vixen an apology for nit-picking about this.

Here's the first post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10847406#post10847406

Quintavalle had asked his cashiers if they remembered her or what she had bought that morning, but they did not remember anything. Quintavalle stated that detergent bleach is sold in his store for 1.09 euro per bottle and he carries only one kind (ACE), and they are all 1.09 per bottle.

Comment: if the prosecution introduces a till receipt for a 1.09 euro item sold at approximately 8:00am on November 2nd this would be very telling. So far such a receipt has not been introduced. The Police sequestered the till receipts, but have not officially released the findings. A possible problem is that many places don’t even ring up the items on the register to save the taxes and half probably go missing anyway. But overall, this was quite damning testimony.

I should have said earlier they sequestered the till receipts, oh my.

Thanks Grinder. Although I wouldn't say I owe an apology for that. I simply said I didn't recall that and asked if she had a source.

I agree had they found purchases on the till tape, this would have not been good for Amanda. Not so much for buying bleach but the combination with lying about it.

 

[Grinder]

Thanks Grinder. Although I wouldn't say I owe an apology for that. I simply said I didn't recall that and asked if she had a source.

Tesla just a poke back you about being kinder and gentler.

I agree had they found purchases on the till tape, this would have not been good for Amanda. Not so much for buying bleach but the combination with lying about it.

They didn't, but had they, both the purchase and the lying would have been huge. I mean a 20 YO gets up at the crack of dawn waits outside a store and buys bleach the morning after her roommate is murdered and denies getting up for another 2 hours, surely it is clear that would have been damning.

 

[Bill Williams]

OK, I give up ...why the BIG SNOOZE response? I thought Bill's comment was OK?

Anglolawyer gets exasperated with responses to things he regards as otherwise obvious. In this case, it would be obvious to him that the finding of a bleach receipt dated for the morning of Nov 2 would somehow damage Amanda's alibi.

Case closed - on that narrow point.

He and I regularly talk past each other on these sorts of things. I join with you, Kauffer and carbonjam72 in looking at this "osmotically". I mean, from some global point of view this lone item has to be attachable to some larger piece of evidence to become even remotely interesting.

To repeat - this case for the last 7 1/2 years has seen a demand for AK to have had perfect memory retention - of stuff which at the time any one of them happened, even she'd have no idea why it would be important.

Then in the absence of memory, the "liar" moniker comes out - the "damning evidence" rhetoric as Grinder put it. That one was a purposeful choice of word at the extreme edge of rhetoric, nothing more.

Anglolawyer may be making a narrow, obvious point. A point full value for a "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz". For me those days are gone. It's past Mar 27, 2015. My real gripe is that he beat me to the "zzzzzzzzzzz".

 

[acbytesla]

Tesla just a poke back you about being kinder and gentler.



They didn't, but had they, both the purchase and the lying would have been huge. I mean a 20 YO gets up at the crack of dawn waits outside a store and buys bleach the morning after her roommate is murdered and denies getting up for another 2 hours, surely it is clear that would have been damning.

Of course, they didn't. And I agree with the rest.

I really tried to be kinder and gentler with Vixen. Bu ok, Vixen I'm terribly sorry not for saying it but thinking that this was just another one of your lies. Mea Culpa.

 

[Grinder]

Anglolawyer may be making a narrow, obvious point. A point full value for a "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz". For me those days are gone. It's past Mar 27, 2015. My real gripe is that he beat me to the "zzzzzzzzzzz".

Trust me Bill, nobody beat you to the zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

This isn't about remembering exactly when they ate or even what they ate. This is Amanda telling the police onhe afternoon of the finding of the body that she woke up around ten and went to the cottage. The idea that forgetting waiting for a store to open to buy anything isn't credible.

Osmotic - what do you think you are an Italian judge?

The key for you for years is that they are "the innocents" with no motive and no violent history therefore they are innocent squared so no evidence could possibly look bad much less be enough to convict them.

There seems to an issue for PIP that they can't step back and look at something without jumping forward and analyzing with later knowledge. Recently a PIP said that a blkack man running into AF couldn't have been related to the crime because Rudi had bloody pants and he would have taken another route. The problem of course is that they didn't know it was Rudi so the information would have been important to them (they may have just keyed on Rudi but we still don't know when AF first called in her info). Obviously after they matched Rudi's prints they KNEW a black man was involved.

If there had been video of her at the store, there wouldn't have been a March 27,2015 and you certainly wouldn't be cheering.

 

[Bill Williams]

Trust me Bill, nobody beat you to the zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

This isn't about remembering exactly when they ate or even what they ate. This is Amanda telling the police onhe afternoon of the finding of the body that she woke up around ten and went to the cottage. The idea that forgetting waiting for a store to open to buy anything isn't credible.

Osmotic - what do you think you are an Italian judge?

The key for you for years is that they are "the innocents" with no motive and no violent history therefore they are innocent squared so no evidence could possibly look bad much less be enough to convict them.

Still on about this, eh? Of course evidence can look bad for those otherwise innocent. What's that got to do with this "what if", meaning, "what if Amanda had been in that store"? We're well down the road of a thought experiment that both you and I, in the end, agree did not happen. How weird is it, then, that I'm "innocence squared" and you're just "innocence-sane," because we differ on the meaning of a hypothetical! LOL!

The strange thing is that there is no need for this kind of rhetoric stretched out to the limit of the Bell curve.

The truth is - ok, let's go back into a time machine and no one knows that there actually is no case against them; present or future. The postals arrive at the cottage, Ak and RS say, "We just arrived here," AK adds, "I was here alone earlier in the morning." What possible reason would an **innocent** Amanda Knox volunteer at that point, "Oh and by the way, I also stepped out briefly from Raffaele's at 8 am just as Quintavalle's was opening to buy bleach, and here are the receipts"?

This is actually getting quite silly.

There seems to an issue for PIP that they can't step back and look at something without jumping forward and analyzing with later knowledge.

This is perhaps the silliest critique I've seen in a while. Why on earth would one NOT jump forward?

If there had been video of her at the store, there wouldn't have been a March 27,2015 and you certainly wouldn't be cheering.

And if my grannie had wheels she'd be a wagon.

This is perhaps one of the sillier exchanges in a while, and I'm participating in it!

 

[RWVBWL]

Random thoughts after a fun surf session before dark, some pasta + drink:
That Free Rudy Guede dude posting at .Net is a friend of Rudy's,
he's starting to get some of the guilters really annoyed with his interesting theories, ya might say.

Elsewhere,
it seems from this story that Miss Knox has another trial starting soon.

Though hardcore Innocentisti can't stand the dude,
Peter Q. wrote an informative article, it looks like.
http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php
And Machiavelli might be covering the trial abit,
you all know that it's always fun to read some Machiavelli...
L8, RW

 

[Kauffer]

Tesla just a poke back you about being kinder and gentler.



They didn't, but had they, both the purchase and the lying would have been huge. I mean a 20 YO gets up at the crack of dawn waits outside a store and buys bleach the morning after her roommate is murdered and denies getting up for another 2 hours, surely it is clear that would have been damning.

Damning in what sense? There was no connection between bleach and crime scene cleanup and murder. How would that have changed?

 

[Planigale]

Still - isn't it still up to the prosecution to demonstrate that this alleged inconsistency somehow is part of the murder? What would the bleach have been for, given carbonjam72's comments?

Once again, this issue of consistency of story is too big a deal. Consistency of account simply means they were engaged in a conspiracy! The prosecution should have their "damned if true, damned if false" theories exposed.

Yes the whole idea about by the bleach to clean up that morning is ridiculous. Filomena as we know was only a few minutes away, it is not as if she had gone abroad, there was no guarantee that she would not pop into her flat to pick up something that morning.

It is a bit like the conflict in the concept between Knox / Sollecito carrying out a forensic clean that morning and being discovered unexpectedly by the postal police (Nobody expects the Italian postal police). Yet despite the 'unexpected' arrival of the police there is no smell of bleach, no cleaning cloths, no dirty clothes. Even if you try and follow through a pro guilt theory it falls apart as being nonsensical.

 

[Numbers]

Yes the whole idea about by the bleach to clean up that morning is ridiculous. Filomena as we know was only a few minutes away, it is not as if she had gone abroad, there was no guarantee that she would not pop into her flat to pick up something that morning.

It is a bit like the conflict in the concept between Knox / Sollecito carrying out a forensic clean that morning and being discovered unexpectedly by the postal police (Nobody expects the Italian postal police). Yet despite the 'unexpected' arrival of the police there is no smell of bleach, no cleaning cloths, no dirty clothes. Even if you try and follow through a pro guilt theory it falls apart as being nonsensical.

Planigale,

Thanks again for posting a very clear and accurate analysis.

There is a continual recycling on this thread of "what ifs" as though the facts were not clear. They are clear and the CSC has finalized the acquittal of these two innocent persons, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

I suggest that the the emphasis of this thread should be: "Official Misconduct and Bad Faith of Italian Authorities in the Arrests, Charges, & Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecitio". This would cover the violations of procedural laws: denial of lawyers during the interrogations and initial custody, denial of a fair translator for Knox, illegal method of interrogation (violations of CPP Articles 63, 64, and 188), falsified grounds for arrest, denial of discovery at arrest hearing, denial of discovery during trials, arbitrary judicial reasoning, and all the other violations of Italian law and the European Convention of Human Rights by the Italian authorities.